1. Title, director and release year?
“Blue Gold” is a film directed by Sam Bozzo released in 2008.
2.What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film is centered on water management and how humans are using water unsustainably and if not addressed soon, the world will experience an extreme water crisis. The film opened up with a story of Pablo Valencia going through the dessert with no water and showed the gruesome painful things that happen with just one week with no water. Once that image was presented the narrator said “this is not a film about saving the environment, it’s a film about saving ourselves”, this comes down to the fact that without this valuable finite resource we cannot live.
Most of the water we have on planet earth is saltwater, only 3% is fresh water for drinking and survival. Humans across the globe are using too much water and polluting the small amount we have putting us in dire need for a solution. Right now we pump fifteen times more water from our groundwater supply than we put back into it causing major water depletion problems; this pumping amount to around 3 billion gallons of water being pumped each day.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
“Blue Gold” brings out many sustainability problems that the average person wouldn’t necessarily consider. The most obvious problem is that our water supply is quickly disappearing before our eyes and without water we cannot live. Earth is the only planet known to be flowing with water and we are not treating this precious resource sustainably which we will pay for it if the problem isn’t resolved. Not only are we pumping groundwater too quickly we are overgrazing the land, cutting down trees and rainforests across the globe, polluting the freshwater we do have, and moving to an urbanized way of life with less permeable surfaces. All of these aspects are contributing the water crisis we are currently in.
Pollution in general has been a sustainability problem that has been discussed in great detail in other films we have seen. In this film they focused on how we are currently polluting our water sources turning the 3% of freshwater we can use into a far smaller percentage. Our water gets polluted through agricultural chemicals, air pollution from our cars and industries, and from negligent companies dumping their waste into waterways. Right now, water pollution is killing more kids than Malaria, AIDS and wars which is a shocking statistic.
Another issue is the fact that water has been deemed an economic good instead of a resource. This has opened the world up to water privatization and brought to light corruption in corporations and legislation within the water industry. The World Bank has “hooked up” with the tree largest water companies from Europe and now for the developing countries to get financial help they need to allow the privatization of their water. The problem with this is that if eventually all water will be owned by companies and poor people who cannot afford to buy it will go without. By requiring water privatization cripples the poorer countries, delaying their progress towards development and is keeps them reliant on aid from the UN and World Bank.
Lastly, damns were presented as a sustainability problem in the film. There are currently 50 thousand damns worldwide “choking off the arteries in the world”. Damning is a problem because it traps the water and nutrients from traveling downstream causing the water to stay stagnant, heat up, and kill the nutrients.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? Historically we have found that civilizations set up shop around water, and the most likely cause of their demise was running out of water. It is amazing the connection that we are able to make, yet how little is being done to stop this fate from happening to us.
I thought that the most compelling part of the film was the section on the water wars. Specifically the war over the Kaveri River in India was memorable because of the way the UN handled the news. The conflict originally started over water, yet for the rest of the world the conflict was framed as a war of religion.
Another compelling part of the film was when they showed the map of the US where the water conflict will be the worst and where there is the highest potential for wars. We always think these problems as so far away from us, but if we do not address this water crisis conflicts will arise in our country as well.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I thought that this film was the best that I have seen in the class thus far. I was compelled by the entire story and did not find myself criticizing what they were saying. Overall the film was very well done.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
In the film they divulged that the Malaysian government has instituted the death penalty for polluting water in the country. Although this is extreme it shows that there are countries that value clean water and want to keep it clean at all costs. It makes me wonder what other countries have policies in place to help protect water and why other countries have not adopted policies. It also makes me think what will slam us into reality? Will it only be when we run out of water that we choose to do something about it?
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think the film is approachable for all viewers. It sends the message that no matter who you are, where you live, what your career is, how much money you have, you still NEED water and if we run out none of those other aspects will matter. I think that the film will definitely make the viewer change their ways and try to use less water and maybe get involved in water conservation organizations.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film gave the viewer many ways to help the problem it proposed eating local and keeping the water from your food in your area, implementing more efficient water heads, watering your lawn less or not at all, turning the tap off when washing your face and brusing your teeth, just little things that each of us could do individually to decrease our impact. Also they suggested hydroponics, developing land that cannot sustain life less and having toilet flushing systems with a low flow and high flow option.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I would have liked to hear more about what governments are doing around the world to address the water crisis we are in. Are there governments making laws and regulations to help?
“Blue Gold” is a film directed by Sam Bozzo released in 2008.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film is centered on water management and how humans are using water unsustainably and if not addressed soon, the world will experience an extreme water crisis. The film opened up with a story of Pablo Valencia going through the dessert with no water and showed the gruesome painful things that happen with just one week with no water. Once that image was presented the narrator said “this is not a film about saving the environment, it’s a film about saving ourselves”, this comes down to the fact that without this valuable finite resource we cannot live.
Most of the water we have on planet earth is saltwater, only 3% is fresh water for drinking and survival. Humans across the globe are using too much water and polluting the small amount we have putting us in dire need for a solution. Right now we pump fifteen times more water from our groundwater supply than we put back into it causing major water depletion problems; this pumping amount to around 3 billion gallons of water being pumped each day.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
“Blue Gold” brings out many sustainability problems that the average person wouldn’t necessarily consider. The most obvious problem is that our water supply is quickly disappearing before our eyes and without water we cannot live. Earth is the only planet known to be flowing with water and we are not treating this precious resource sustainably which we will pay for it if the problem isn’t resolved. Not only are we pumping groundwater too quickly we are overgrazing the land, cutting down trees and rainforests across the globe, polluting the freshwater we do have, and moving to an urbanized way of life with less permeable surfaces. All of these aspects are contributing the water crisis we are currently in.
Pollution in general has been a sustainability problem that has been discussed in great detail in other films we have seen. In this film they focused on how we are currently polluting our water sources turning the 3% of freshwater we can use into a far smaller percentage. Our water gets polluted through agricultural chemicals, air pollution from our cars and industries, and from negligent companies dumping their waste into waterways. Right now, water pollution is killing more kids than Malaria, AIDS and wars which is a shocking statistic.
Another issue is the fact that water has been deemed an economic good instead of a resource. This has opened the world up to water privatization and brought to light corruption in corporations and legislation within the water industry. The World Bank has “hooked up” with the tree largest water companies from Europe and now for the developing countries to get financial help they need to allow the privatization of their water. The problem with this is that if eventually all water will be owned by companies and poor people who cannot afford to buy it will go without. By requiring water privatization cripples the poorer countries, delaying their progress towards development and is keeps them reliant on aid from the UN and World Bank.
Lastly, damns were presented as a sustainability problem in the film. There are currently 50 thousand damns worldwide “choking off the arteries in the world”. Damning is a problem because it traps the water and nutrients from traveling downstream causing the water to stay stagnant, heat up, and kill the nutrients.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Historically we have found that civilizations set up shop around water, and the most likely cause of their demise was running out of water. It is amazing the connection that we are able to make, yet how little is being done to stop this fate from happening to us.
I thought that the most compelling part of the film was the section on the water wars. Specifically the war over the Kaveri River in India was memorable because of the way the UN handled the news. The conflict originally started over water, yet for the rest of the world the conflict was framed as a war of religion.
Another compelling part of the film was when they showed the map of the US where the water conflict will be the worst and where there is the highest potential for wars. We always think these problems as so far away from us, but if we do not address this water crisis conflicts will arise in our country as well.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I thought that this film was the best that I have seen in the class thus far. I was compelled by the entire story and did not find myself criticizing what they were saying. Overall the film was very well done.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
In the film they divulged that the Malaysian government has instituted the death penalty for polluting water in the country. Although this is extreme it shows that there are countries that value clean water and want to keep it clean at all costs. It makes me wonder what other countries have policies in place to help protect water and why other countries have not adopted policies. It also makes me think what will slam us into reality? Will it only be when we run out of water that we choose to do something about it?
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think the film is approachable for all viewers. It sends the message that no matter who you are, where you live, what your career is, how much money you have, you still NEED water and if we run out none of those other aspects will matter. I think that the film will definitely make the viewer change their ways and try to use less water and maybe get involved in water conservation organizations.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film gave the viewer many ways to help the problem it proposed eating local and keeping the water from your food in your area, implementing more efficient water heads, watering your lawn less or not at all, turning the tap off when washing your face and brusing your teeth, just little things that each of us could do individually to decrease our impact. Also they suggested hydroponics, developing land that cannot sustain life less and having toilet flushing systems with a low flow and high flow option.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I would have liked to hear more about what governments are doing around the world to address the water crisis we are in. Are there governments making laws and regulations to help?